It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 Cat and Traps Sea Trials

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Two F-35's made their first traps at sea yesterday aboard the Nimitz, and today they made their first cat launches at sea.

Historic First F-35 Landing on Carrier

Two Joint Strike Fighters successfully landed aboard the aircraft carrier Nimitz Monday, in what is considered the new Navy fighter jet's coming out party and an historic day in naval aviation.

Both F-35Cs caught the "three wire” – the third of four cables stretched across the deck, considered a bullseye in Navy flying -- putting an extra patina of success on the first day of sea trials for the next-generation American jet.



First trap:


Touch and goes and traps:


Cat Launches:

edit on 4-11-2014 by _Del_ because: added link




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I believe I heard a bit of a snarl in the engine tone, I cant wait to see one at an airshow! Does the C model have the same automatic takeoff system the F/A-18E has? I couldn`t really see the pilots hand go up in the video to signal hands off the stick. It does look graceful on the carrier deck, I might have to breakout the TopGun OST.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

It's got an interesting landing system where the flaps are auto controlled.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's got to be incredibly unnerving to transitioning pilots used to manual landings at first, But what an aid to have in rough weather. I completely forgot about JPALS, went right over my head.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear
I believe I heard a bit of a snarl in the engine tone, I cant wait to see one at an airshow!


The only demo I've seen was pretty tame. But it looked good doing it, I suppose. Notice that the cat launch was accomplished at military power (no burner).



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   
well it certainly ain't broke!

wonder what the guys and gals will think once they get their hands on them and really tear it up. do we know about the buddy refueling capability yet?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Nice (automatic) landing. Other specifications?




Built to be the deadliest hunter killer aircraft of all time, the F-35 has quite literally become the hunted. In every scenario that the F-35 has been wargamed against Su-30 Flankers, the Russian aircraft have emerged winners. America’s newest stealth aircraft – costing $191 million per unit – is riddled with such critical design flaws that it’s likely to get blown away in a shootout with the super-maneuverable Sukhois.


Why the F-35 is a sitting duck for the Flankers



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: maghun

We've all seen this video. It's no different than any other multi-role fighter ever produced. Sprey sounds like an angry drunk uncle who wasn't invited to Thanksgiving.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Have you read the RAND briefing? It doesn't really say what you're assuming.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Only the statement:


“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”





From an air-to-air point of view, 2 issues deserve special mention.

One issue is weight. The F-35 was designed with little margin for weight growth, but new capabilities and fixes for testing issues often add weight. Weight growth above designated limits directly affects aerial performance, and at some point, weight dilemmas can become a lose/lose proposition. One frequent consequence is higher costs, for example, as very expensive but lightweight materials are used to save an extra pound here and there. Another consequence is reduced performance, as seen in the F-35B’s drop to 7.0 maximum Gs after its aggressive weight reduction effort. A third consequence involves ruggedness and survivability, as seen by the fleet-wide problem created by saving just 11 pounds in all variants. Without fuelstatic flow fuses and Polyalphaolefin (PAO) coolant shutoff valves, DOT&E estimates that these flammable substances make the F-35 25% less likely to survive enemy fire.

The second issue that deserves especial mention is that key aerial combat standards have been lowered, following initial tests. All F-35s will sit at 5.0g or less sustained turn performance – a figure that places them in a class with 1960s era planes like the F-5 or F-4 Phantom, instead of modern designs like the F-16. Acceleration is also poorer, compared to a reference F-16C Block 50 with AMRAAM missiles on its wingtips zooming from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Ah, yes, the unnamed Boeing employee taking potshots. Quotes amounting to (and this is a quote) "I don't know, and I don't believe it". I've seen that full article before. Some of what is being said there isn't true. Some of it is true, but is being crouched in terms that are misleading.

Why is E-M data never given apples-to-apples? Why are we comparing the F-35 with a full combat load to a clean F-4 or F-5? Or clean F-16 (which the A model still has probably the best looking E-M diagram out there, including the Sukhois) for that matter?

The response to the F-35 models having better acceleration than combat loaded planes is "So what?". Erm, okay. I'm convinced. The F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 without use of the afterburner. If you want to call that supercruise or not, is a matter of debate, I'll agree. But it matches the Typhoon ability with a combat load.

The F-35 can carry external loads on pylons just like 4th gen aircraft. I'm not sure how that is a disadvantage? It can also penetrate heavily defended airspace with internal carriage only. That's a whole realm of action impossible for the 4th generation aircraft.

I think it's reasonable to expect that the F-35 will be on par kinematically with 4th generation aircraft in combat configuration. And that's really what matters essentially. There is nothing else on the market in regards to LO aircraft for export. Nothing matches the sensor fusion capabilities.


The RAND study, btw, dealt with a particular scenario of force projection over Taiwan; the scenario featured the removal of Kadena, degradation of Guam, gave no account of signature reduction and assumed fusion of L-band data with all opposing platforms, etc. The F-35 got clobbered by sheer numbers the same way all legacy aircraft and the F-22 did. There was no conceivable outcome in which the US was able to maintain superiority over Taiwan. No kinematic data was studied, the results were given as pk values of AAM's vs numbers of AAM's on station at any time.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

A+ Del



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I know some of the people who are pulling maintenance on the F-35 and they love it.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Their starting to look right at home on the flight deck.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
bitchen vids OP!



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: _Del_

Their starting to look right at home on the flight deck.


Yeah I'll say.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
They launched their first night ops yesterday. Over 100 sorties have been flown during the first week of testing according to Janes.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Remember when the F-35, according to some detractors, couldn't land on aircraft carriers due to the distance between the landing gear and the hook?

Shows what they know.

The actual problem, which was the hook skipping over the wire due to the shape of the hook, which has obviously been fixed.
edit on 16/11/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join